Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
Then GW Bush commuted their sentences because he was afraid 0bama would as part of an amnesty
We have no idea motivation or reasoning, I don’t recall seeing any statement as to why, all assumptions on our part.
But if it’s true that legally ineligible candidates can be legally seated, I don’t think I like the law anymore.
Problem is that no state or the feds have untaken to write a requirement that proof of eligiblity be provided, to whom and in what form. Until then who enforces the requirement or demands that one show proof, etc.
......they lost their jobs for doing their jobs.....
Actually, shooting a fleeing suspect is not part of their job description and is in fact against the law.
I am a sometimes viewer of COPS. They show frequently depicts incidents where the suspect flees on foot leaving the cops no choice but to run them down. They never have a chase where the suspect gets away, but I’m sure it happens a lot.
For the Border Patrol agents to be not guilty, there must be a law forbidding fleeing from cops on foot on pain of being shot.
I personally believe any body who runs is guilty prima fascia and should be shot rather than subjecting the police to endangerment of a foot chase. The mollycoddling courts have destroyed law enforcement.
If they hadn’t tried to cover it up, things might have been different.
“Is this a vindication of the much-maligned Johnny Sutton?”
Hell no!
Dyna - isn’t there a deputy sheriff that Sutton prosecuted for assaulting a van load of illegals - by firing on the van AFTER it tried to run him over? I’m sketchy on the details.
Millions of Americans will never forget the unjust persecution of these two brave border agents. W is very lucky that he at least commuted their sentences, as otherwise he would have been persona non grata in many grassroots conservative circles, it seems to me. Had he not at least ended their incarcerations, I would never have been able to look at him without thinking of what he had done.
Best of luck, Ramos and Compean! What goes around comes around. Your best days are ahead of you.
Ignacio Ramos, Jose Compean, Gilmer Hernandez, David Sipe, Gary Brugman...
It’s happening too often.
I think you are probably referring to Gilmer Hernandez:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799044/posts
Guillermo “Gilmer” Hernandez, former Edwards County deputy sheriff, says he feared for his life and was just doing his job when he shot at the tires of a vehicle carrying Mexican nationals after, he says, the driver tried to run him down.
But federal prosecutors say that because the vehicle was heading away from him, he illegally used deadly force, violating the civil rights of a woman slightly wounded in the 2005 incident.
Hernandez, 25, faces sentencing March 19 in Del Rio, where he has been held in a federal detention facility since being convicted, in December. He faces up to 10 years in prison.
....Officials say an investigation by the Texas Rangers and other law enforcers initially cleared Hernandez. But more than a year later, the U.S. Department of Justice reopened the case based on the testimony of some of the illegal immigrants involved.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1911847/posts
Former Sheriff’s Deputy Has No Regrets - Gilmer Hernandez Released!
You do know that Sutton was not the prosecuter, and that the judge ruled the information should be withheld from the jury.
You do know that criminal law explicitly denies the jury “all the evidence”.
You do know that if evidence was improperly withheld from a jury, the Supreme court WOULD take the case and WOULD overturn the verdict.
You do know like you sound like you lost money on your drug shipment.
Lying idiots.
It's too bad President Bush didn't know as much about this case as you did. He might have made a wiser choice. Too bad he didn't have anyone advising him who had your knowledge of the situation. Maybe you should contact him and provide the REAL story?
This was clearly a case of a prosecutor going too far. That doesn't mean the men were innocent. Such a simple observation gets a lot of folks who know half the story all self-righteous and blustery, but that's just too damn bad.
The prosecutor and his dirtbag witness don't make these two guys angels. I don't expect them to be with the job they had to do. But their behavior could have been better. It didn't warrant such ridiculous sentences--most of which was mandatory due to the use of firearms in the 'crime'--but that doesn't mean they should have gotten off with perfect records, either--they discharge that many shots and simply don't report it? Come on.
The punishments they received were unwarranted and too harsh. Bush got them out of jail, as he should have.
Well the shooting is the ONLY thing at issue here. All the bogus charges related to the so-called "coverup" were THROWN OUT on appeal.
That's not true. All of the charges sprang from the shooting, and all of the charges except one--the obstruction of justice one--were upheld on appeal. Bush's commutation was not about their being convicted unfairly, it was about their having already been punished due to the "loss of jobs, freedom and reputations." So no, the shooting isn't the ONLY thing at issue here because claiming "all the bogus charges" etc. were NOT thown out on appeal. The charges of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence and deprivation of civil rights were UPHELD on appeal. If, say, a democrat's or an illegal alien's conviction for covering up a crime were overturned, would you say "Oh, well, I guess they didn't cover it up, the court says so!" or would you look at the totality of available evidence and make your own judgment?
These men were given too much punishment for their crimes. That's been righted, properly, by President Bush. It's the overheated desire to portray them as only victims of a bad shoot that rankles.
Get your facts straight. The charges of the coverup weren't "bogus"--it was an issue of the initial investigation into the scene--where spent shells were picked up and the shooting not reported--not being an official proceding--NOT that the events didn't happen.
The twisting of facts by supposed "defenders" of people who may have made poor decisions does them no favors.
As to the charges, you're simply wrong. Below is a list of the initial charges with those thrown out on appeal shown in strike-out text.
Counts . Disposition Ignacio Ramos (1) 18:113G.F ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND AIDING AND ABETTING (2sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release with a $2000.00 FINE and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 12sss 18:113B.F ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AND AIDING AND ABETTING (3sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 2sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 12sss 18:924C.F DISCHARGE OF A FIRARM IN COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE (4sss) Sentenced to 120 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run consecutive with counts 2sss, 3sss, 8sss, 9sss & 12sss 18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (8sss)12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 2sss, 9sss, & 12sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (9sss)12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 2sss, & 12sss18:242.F DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (12sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 2sss Jose Alonso Compean (2) 18:113G.F ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND AIDING AND ABETTING (2sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release with a $2000.00 FINE and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 10sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss 18:113B.F ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AND AIDING AND ABETTING (3sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 10sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss 18:924C.F USE OF A FIREARM IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF VIOLENCE (5sss) Sentenced to 120 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run consecutive with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, 10sss & 11sss 18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (6sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 10sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH A OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (7sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 10sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (8sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 10sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (10sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:242.F DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (11sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 10sss
You have got to be kidding me! You weren't on the early threads where Johnny Sutton's lackeys claimed that R&C were "out to shoot Mexicans" and that Sutton had proof of such. Talk about Bogus!
There has been thread upon thread on FR for the last 2 years, along with transcripts, excerpts, and analysis -- all of which I participated in. I never saw you on a single one of those. So before you go lecturing me about "facts," please go read some of those threads and make comments there on anything you disagree with.
I don't care about the lies the prosecution claimed, and that's a distraction which doesn't touch on the genuine wrongdoing by these men.
I never saw you on a single one of those.
LOL! So because I wasn't one of those cutting and pasting the same friendly articles people throw around to support their prejudices, I have no right to post? Fine--then don't respond to what I post with hysterical comments like the above. I deal in facts, convenient to my original impressions or not. I'm not interested in bias, from the PC prosecutors or anyone else.
Careful now, your colors are showing.
Fine--then don't respond to what I post with hysterical comments like the above
Yes. Your comments are hysterical. And inaccurate, to boot!
Sure does!
Ping some Texans and my General Interest list here!
Ping! Ping! Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.